Oireachtas Joint and Select Committees

Wednesday, 16 December 2015

Joint Oireachtas Committee on Justice, Defence and Equality

Parole Board Annual Report 2014: Discussion

9:30 am

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

On behalf of the committee, I welcome Mr. John Costello, chairman of the Parole Board.

Witnesses should note they are protected by absolute privilege in respect of the evidence they are to give to the committee. However, if they are directed by it to cease giving evidence on a particular matter and continue to do so, they are entitled thereafter only to qualified privilege in respect of their evidence. They are directed that only evidence connected with the subject matter of these proceedings is to be given and asked to respect the parliamentary practice to the effect that, where possible, they should not criticise or make charges against any person or an entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable. Members should also be aware that, under the salient rulings of the Chair, they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside the Houses or an official, either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I invite Mr. Costello to make his opening statement. I apologise more members are not present but we had a long session previously. Members are fatigued as a result.

Mr. John Costello:

I am conscious that in my written submission I did not mention victims or their families. We receive many written submissions from victims and their families which we take seriously. They would also affect any decision we reach. In any decision the board makes, we must bear in mind it is correct for the protection of society.

I have been privileged to be chairman of the Parole Board for the past four years. There is incredibly good work being done under the radar by all the staff in the Prison Service, the Probation Service and the psychology and educational services. Obviously, there are a few bad apples. However, by and large, from my experience, we see very vulnerable prisoners being treated exceptionally by staff. That is the positive story but there are negative ones too.

I have great admiration for Peter McVerry. He recently said that not one prisoner has been improved in prison. I have to contradict him, however. Ironically, we mainly deal with lifers. As they are in for a minimum of 15 years, there is time given to let them rehabilitate themselves. We have seen very dangerous and vulnerable people completely rehabilitated over 15 to 20 years. Unfortunately, there are some who it will be impossible to rehabilitate and who will always be a danger to society.

When we visit prisoners, we make three key points to them. First, they have to serve their punishment; second, they must rehabilitate themselves; third, they have to be low risk for reoffending. The big philosophical debate we come across in practice is about when someone has served their punishment. Sometimes, there is a conflict between the rehabilitation of a prisoner and the serving of his or her sentence or punishment. When Michael Donnellan, director general of the Prison Service, attended our training day, he made the point that the length of time a person is in prison should not be the most important factor when it comes to rehabilitation. In other words, quite often, there is an appropriate time for someone to be granted periods of temporary release or to be moved to an open prison. There is no doubt that prisoners for life can become institutionalised. If they are imprisoned for too long, it may be too late to rehabilitate them fully and settle them back into the community.

The Parole Board only deals with a small number of prisoners. Only 344 life-sentence prisoners come under our jurisdiction while only 273 prisoners serve a sentence of ten years or more. On balance, we might only recommend parole for four or five prisoners a year. At least 70 former life-sentence prisoners are out in the community who have not reoffended. That is a sign parole is working. On average, only one life-sentence prisoner comes back into prison during the year.

We compiled statistics in 2013 which showed that only 24% of prisoners who were accused of murder pleaded guilty in the courts. However, in prison, when they were found guilty of murder, over 90% admitted their guilt. They had no incentive to plead guilty in the courts. This needs to be dealt with and I have suggested a reform. If a person pleads guilty, there is no mention in the appropriate legislation that this factor should be taken into account when considering parole. It is a major omission. If it could affect their parole decisions, it would incentivise more people accused of murder to plead guilty.

The Parole Board deals with many fixed-term sentence prisoners, say of ten years or more. They get an automatic 25% remission. For example, a prisoner sentenced to ten years gets out after seven and a half years. Quite often a number of these prisoners are going to reoffend because there are no post-release supervision orders. There is an onus on the Judiciary to make more post-release supervision orders because the Probation Service does not have any requirement to help these offenders. There is a role for the Judiciary to improve. I read recently that a private firm in the UK helped the post-release supervision of prisoners.

That firm was paid on the basis of results. In other words, if former prisoners did not reoffend, the private firm got paid. I do not know how it worked out but it was a very interesting idea. The incentive was they got paid if the offenders did not reoffend. It is interesting that we do not have an open prison for women. There is no training of board members but I have gone back to college and studied for an MA in criminology. One of the issues we looked at was private prisons. In Australia, 20% of prisons are private and those prisons have strict values to which they must adhere. It occurs to me that an open prison for women could be constructed privately on the Australian model. I throw that suggestion out.

My final point is totally irrelevant but refers to something that could have changed the face of history. In the American presidential election of 2000, George Bush won in Florida by 537 votes. If the prisoners of Florida had had a vote, they would have voted Democrat and George Bush would have lost the election. World history would have changed. I end on that note.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is a very interesting note on which to end. I thank Mr. Costello for coming in to us. He has raised a significant number of issues in his report and submission. I apologise but I have to be up in the Chamber shortly and cannot stay long.

I disagree with Mr Costello on private prisons. If one looks at the literature and experience of private prisons in the UK and US in particular, they have not been a happy experience. The problem is that the number of people in them tends to expand as prison places become available. This committee has produced a report suggesting there should be a lower use of imprisonment and that prison should be a last resort. I do not agree it is a good road to go down, although I agree with Mr Costello that we should have an open prison facility for women.

On a more serious note, Mr Costello spoke about the issue of the guilty plea as a factor when reviewing a prisoner for parole and said it is not currently a factor the Parole Board can consider when reviewing a prisoner for parole. Did he make the point that admission of guilt in a more general sense is a factor?

Mr. John Costello:

It is not mentioned in the legislation on temporary release. We are bound by the 2003 Act.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The 2003 Act.

Mr. John Costello:

It is not one of the factors listed in the Act.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

In other words, even a subsequent admission in custody cannot be considered.

Mr. John Costello:

No.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Costello said that only 16 of the 255 offenders the board reviewed had not accepted responsibility.

Mr. John Costello:

Yes.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I presume that included people who had not pleaded guilty but later admitted responsibility.

Mr. John Costello:

Yes.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

The board cannot take either into account.

Mr. John Costello:

No.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

There is a corollary that if one were to remove the mandatory life sentence for murder, it would deal with the problem in another way in respect of that specific group, which I have argued before, because currently there is no incentive for them to plead guilty. I accept Mr Costello's point that it should be built in.

In terms of the 29 prisoners who refuse to participate in the parole process, what proportion are they of the overall prisoners who are eligible for consideration? Does Mr Costello think that should be changed in the legislation? Should it be possible for prisoners to participate in parole without losing the rights and privileges they are currently fearful of losing?

Mr. John Costello:

The main problem, which I have set out in the written submission, seems to be that they lose rights for temporary release and also lose other privileges. It is just prison practice. It should not affect their existing rights but it seems it does. I have not had a meeting with the prison governors and I want to do that in the new year and raise the issue. One prisoner who was moved to Loughan House after four years said he did not enter the parole process because he would not have been moved there so quickly had he done so. There is something seriously wrong.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Is Mr. Costello saying that we do not know exactly what is wrong?

Mr. John Costello:

No, it is prison policy.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

It is prison policy.

Mr. John Costello:

Yes, but there is no legal basis for it.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

That is very interesting and worth highlighting. It is counter-intuitive that it would be the case.

Mr. John Costello:

It is, yes.

Photo of Ivana BacikIvana Bacik (Independent)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Costello and apologise for having to leave.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

Mr. Costello has mentioned care, supervision and support after prison. Does the Parole Board engage with organisations such as Care After Prison in Dublin, the Churchfield Community Trust in Cork, the Cornmarket Project in Wexford or U-Casadh in Waterford? What is Mr. Costello's knowledge and view of the work they are doing?

Mr. John Costello:

In May this year we visited Mountjoy and I brought along Stephen Doyle who works full time in Care After Prison and who was a prisoner granted parole after 13 and a half years. He came with us to Mountjoy and spoke to 50 lifers and told them what he did to get parole and rehabilitate himself. He is encouraging other lifers to start rehabilitation work from day one. He has said he will come to more prisons with us to talk to groups of lifers about the work he does in Care After Prison and to incentivise them to rehabilitate themselves from day one. The first review is not until after seven years and quite often many of the prisoners have not done any rehabilitation in those seven years.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

I thank Mr. Costello for being here today and I apologise there were not more members present.

Mr. John Costello:

At least the committee has the report.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We have the report.

Mr. John Costello:

I was delighted to quote Nelson Mandela.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

We saw that in the report. Would Mr. Costello like to read it?

Mr. John Costello:

It is a nice note to end on. Nelson Mandela said:

It is said that no one truly knows a nation until one has been inside its jails. A nation should not be judged by how it treats its higher citizens, but its lowest ones.

Photo of David StantonDavid Stanton (Cork East, Fine Gael)
Link to this: Individually | In context | Oireachtas source

He spent quite a while in prison. I thank Mr. Costello for being here today and for his engagement with us. I wish him and the board every success for the future and a happy Christmas.

The joint committee adjourned at 4.20 p.m. sine die.